Mark Gary Coates v Janice Elizabeth Turner & Anor

A custodial sentence for civil contempt must be just and proportionate. Immediate imprisonment is reserved for the most serious breaches or cases where other means of securing compliance have failed. The court must assess culpability and actual or threatened harm, while prioritising future compliance, punishment and rehabilitation in that order.

Separate penalties may be imposed concurrently or consecutively. Simply adding sentences for individual breaches risks an excessive total. Where related breaches arise from the same order and course of conduct, consecutive terms may require explanation. A contempt finding must also be proved to the criminal standard and rationally supported by the evidence and context.

The appellant was found in contempt of court for seven breaches of orders made following a boundary and harassment dispute with his neighbours. The County Court imposed consecutive terms totalling 420 days, reduced by 40% to 252 days' immediate imprisonment.

He appealed against the findings and sentence. The issues included the use of his previously filed witness statements, whether ambiguous remarks at a permission hearing constituted a threat, whether immediate custody should have been suspended, and whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal also raised the proper treatment of multiple breaches for the purposes of concurrency, totality and proportionality.

1. Appeal allowed as to one contempt finding and sentence. The finding concerning remarks made at a permission hearing could not be rationally supported to the criminal standard. The words did not expressly threaten the respondents or their property, were ambiguous, and were spoken in an unusual courtroom context. Even if they amounted to contempt, treating them as the most serious breach and selecting a 24-week starting point was clearly erroneous.
2. The challenge concerning the appellant's witness statements failed. The Court considered In re B (Contempt of Court: Affidavit Evidence) [1996] 1 WLR 627, but did not decide whether using exhibits in cross-examination and expressly relying on filed statements amounted to deploying them as evidence. The judge had placed no significant reliance on the statements. The relevant breaches were independently proved beyond reasonable doubt, so there was no serious procedural error leading to injustice.
3. Applying Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, immediate custody is reserved for the most serious breaches or less serious cases where other methods of securing compliance have failed. Sentencing must address future compliance, punishment and rehabilitation, in that order. It must assess culpability and harm and remain a multifactorial exercise producing a just and proportionate sentence.
4. The guidelines did not operate as a strait-jacket, but three breaches could not properly be classified as category A high-culpability breaches. The remaining breaches were at most category B. Although the appellant's persistent disobedience and lack of appetite for compliance justified immediate rather than suspended imprisonment, 252 days was markedly outside the range of proportionate disposals for a first committal of this nature.
5. A judge may aggregate individual terms and then apply a totality cross-check, provided the starting points are sound. Alternatively, related breaches may be grouped or the overall course of conduct assessed. Where breaches arose from the same order, concerned the same dispute and were largely directed at the same respondents, consecutive sentences required explanation. Excessive starting points could not reliably be corrected by an unexplained percentage discount.
6. The Court unanimously substituted a sentence permitting immediate release. The appellant had served 47 days, equivalent to a sentence of 94 days or approximately three months. Future breaches would be likely to attract a substantial term of committal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2023] EWCA Civ 1487, unanimously set aside the finding on Allegation 9 and substituted a sentence permitting the appellant's immediate release.
2. County Court at Hastings: On 26 October 2023, Her Honour Judge Venn found seven breaches of the injunction proved beyond reasonable doubt and imposed a term of committal of 252 days.
3. County Court at Hastings: On 20 September 2022, Her Honour Judge Venn determined the underlying boundary dispute in the respondents' favour and made orders including damages, indemnity costs and injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.